March 26, 2009

"Mrs. Obama and her staff also visited Miriam’s Kitchen, a soup kitchen, where the first lady bumped into Bill Richardson, a 46-year-old homeless man. Mr. Richardson was so stunned that he could barely stammer thank you as Mrs. Obama scooped a helping of mushroom risotto onto his plate this month."

LOL Okay, so it's not that Bill Richardson, but the mental image was still funny.

"The skipping king, he ambled up and down With shallow jesters and rash bavin wits, Soon kindled and soon burnt; carded his state, Mingled his royalty with capering fools, Had his great name profaned with their scorns And gave his countenance, against his name, To laugh at gibing boys and stand the push Of every beardless vain comparative, Grew a companion to the common streets, Enfeoff'd himself to popularity; That, being daily swallow'd by men's eyes, They surfeited with honey and began To loathe the taste of sweetness, whereof littleMore than a little is by much too much.So when he had occasion to be seen, He was but as the cuckoo is in June, Heard, not regarded; seen, but with such eyes As, sick and blunted with community, Afford no extraordinary gaze..."

'Under the feudal system, enfeoffment was the deed by which a person was given land in exchange for a pledge of service. '

this sort of coverage goes a long way to negating his less successful policy choices recently.

You think he's trying to disassociate himself from the White House? "I'm outta here! You guys need to come up with better policies if you expect me to hang around. I've gotta worry about my image. I don't work out three times a week to be seen with a bunch of losers. I won, remember?"

Although I think that the President's appearances on Leno and ESPN and the like probably are not good for his effectiveness, these forays seem harmless to me. My chief concern with them has to do with security. I always am concerned about and pray for the safety of our presidents.

I understand he is working 4.5 day weeks with weekends off and doesn't miss dinner with the family for pressing business.

Clearly we aren't in any financial crisis.

I note that the NYT left off the question of attending local churches, something that Presidents before him have always done. This "deeply religious man" to quote reports about him when he was running, hasn't bothered going to church again since he threw Wright under the bus.

I am pleased that the NYT avoided making the "Michele loves military families, a cause she discovered last year, the first First Lady to champion..." meme. It makes me want to puke.

Yes, it would certainly be better for the president to stay more isolated from the people he is governing. The nerve of Obama visiting a charter school in a Hispanic neighborhood.

And of course no other president has ever attended sporting events or made public appearances.

Keep focusing on this and Obama's use of a teleprompter and the like; it is, of course what real Americans are worried about. I am sure that the electorate will respond by sweeping Republicans back into office.

THE president says he hopes to serve as a bridge in a town long divided between the haves and have-nots. “I want to see if we can bring those two Washingtons together,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on the ABC program “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

What the hell does that mean? Millionaires having lunch with street people?

THE president says he hopes to serve as a bridge in a town long divided between the haves and have-nots.

I do want to say that Obama hasn't been in Washington long enough to have a clue whether a "divide" exists or not. If you want to hob nob with politicians in DC, you pretty much can. Most people dont' really care.

Obama still is enjoying popularity because despite the economy, it's still honeymoon time with our new President. After about a year he won't be as charmingly cute anymore.

It's just like two newlyweds. They're so much in love with each other that when he hikes a cheek and rips a fart she'll giggle and remark how cute it is. Then after a about a year of getting her daily morning Dutch oven hell be just a disgusting pig.

Excuse the typo...I typed Althouse when I meant to type "Meadehouse" heh.

I tried out Malthouse in another thread and got a laugh.

Count me in the don't care camp. For whatever reason, the President doing ESPN or Leno annoys me, but I think that's just because I hate TV. The President going to the ballet or a sports event does not.

The president doesn't need to make a martyr of himself to be effective. We've already had one Jimmy Carter micromanaging his way to failure; we don't need another one.

If Obama can't trust the people he appoints, it doesn't matter how much paper he shuffles.

Bush was right about one thing -- the president is a decider. Yet the President is at the mercy of the information given to him by his staff and cabinet. Given that reality, it may be more important for Obama to be rested and alert when decision-time comes, than exhausted by all-night cram sessions.

This may be all funny-ha-ha to people, but you'd think with the economy as it is, and his diplomatic initiative to Iran being swatted away as contemptuously as it was, that he might, you know, um, ah, want to do some work.

No but the electorate being fickle and having the memory of a 4 year old will most likely tire of seeing yet more runaway spending, more debt and a devalued dollar and do the usual changing of the guard. Then 2-4 years from them they'll rinse and repeat.

I enjoy seeing Pres.Obama being himself. The only "job" of a King is to be alive and be in place to prevent another competing Authority figure from upsetting the Peace of the Kingdom. It worked in Kenya and in Hawaii as the normal role for a Strong Man King for thousands of years. I o miss the Scots-Irish traditional role of our President as the temporary Protector of a free citizen's government from hostile forces at home and abroad, which originated in the old USA under Washington and Jackson. But Obama now wants to try ruling in a style that feels right to him, that of a King selling out the greatful tribe he owns for trinkets. What me worry!

Yeah, from the start they made noises like being in the White House was going to be difficult.

Here's an old idea ... why didn't he consider that then and be a Senator for at least a full term or maybe even a term and a half and his CHILDREN would then have had a much more normal family life? And he would might be riding a two wheeler?

The Obamas might think the Presidency is unnecessarily restricting, but there are people out there who are crazy or evil who don't give a rat's ass about whether he enjoys basketball or chili on a regular basis.

A complete logistical nightmare for the Secret Service.

But putting other people's lives and careers on the line for some chili is no big whoop.

MadisonMan, as an addendum to my fiscal responsibility rant, we'll never get it from either party because both are beholden to their own constituency which see tax payer dollars like teenagers see Mom and Dad's wallet.

Not trying to be a doomsayer but we're pretty much done as a functioning nation. Maybe 20 years tops and we'll be somewhere along the lines of Zimbabwe because our debt will be unsustainable. There simply is not enough tax dollars to pay for all the entitlements. Our unfunded liabilities (Medicare SSN) alone need $42 trillion right now, not yesterday not next year, right fucking now in order to keep those programs solvent 50 years from now.

The maths been done and the money simply isn't there. We can eliminate all defense spending and tax everyone at 70% and the money isn't there. This isn't me making the stuff up. This is from David Walker, former Comptroller General.

Mrs. Obama and her staff also visited Miriam’s Kitchen, a soup kitchen, where the first lady bumped into Bill Richardson, a 46-year-old homeless man. Mr. Richardson was so stunned that he could barely stammer thank you as Mrs. Obama scooped a helping of mushroom risotto onto his plate this month.

LOL Okay, so it's not that Bill Richardson, but the mental image was still funny.

I wonder how long it takes for a presidential party to get organized and go somewhere?

If you take sixty days, subtract travel and prepping for TV appearances, subtract the time spent doing the activities mentioned in the article and deduct for the planning and disruption of the day that accompanies them, I wonder how many blocs of uninterrupted time are available in Obama's week.

Probably more likely due to Obama doubling the deficit in 60 days rather then demanding some fiscal responsibility.

Are you seriously looking to Republicans for fiscal responsibility?

Using a compact and undiluted format, the intellectually bereft and journalistically sloven media needs every day to put before their audience charts and graphs of Federal budgets deficits and the growing national debt including unfunded liabilities, show who is funding US spending, and consider the cost of the debt and its eventual threat to national wealth and security.

They should have been doing so since at least the mid 90's when the government had exploding revenues with a continued increase in national debt.

It was essential during the doubling of the national debt during the last eight years.

Whenever a new entitlement program is proposed, the inevitable question is 'How will it be paid for?' The Congressional answer is to pass the legislation without addressing the question.

...and his diplomatic initiative to Iran being swatted away as contemptuously as it was...

If Obama can't trust the people he appoints, it doesn't matter how much paper he shuffles.

If there's nobody there, he won't have to trust them.

Bush was right about one thing -- the president is a decider. Yet the President is at the mercy of the information given to him by his staff and cabinet. Given that reality, it may be more important for Obama to be rested and alert when decision-time comes, than exhausted by all-night cram sessions.

Given that he is minus some information gatherers and gleaners, his decision making could be imparied.

But since "seizing" firms is on his list of things he must do, it certainly seems to be. Impaired that is.

Not to mention the whiplash we are getting as he claims one thing and flips it the next day.

I can't decide if I'd rather have him out on the streets or "working." I am beginning to think out on the street may not be the worst place he could be. (With apologies to my relative.)

Strange to read this today from HD(was there something in the morning's coffee?):

"MadisonMan, as an addendum to my fiscal responsibility rant, we'll never get it from either party because both are beholden to their own constituency which see tax payer dollars like teenagers see Mom and Dad's wallet. Not trying to be a doomsayer but we're pretty much done as a functioning nation."

MM and HD are getting a little carried away with cynicism du jour. You're both assuming a static model of politics, as if the Reps will remain in Bush-mode (lowering taxes while increasing expeditures, leading to exploding deficits). There's nothing like a shellacking at the polls to move people past that. And as Rahm says, why waste a good crisis? The O-team's idea that the country can borrow its way (massively) out of a debt-driven crisis doesn't seem to be persuading John Q Citizen that those guys are on the right track, even if JQC can't really explain and doesn't understand the economic reasons why.

As in times past, the confluence of self-interest and political principle will do its magic, and the Reps will end up where they historically always were, pushing for fiscal responsibility. And the Dems will be were they always were, complaining about the lack of compassion and attacking the Reps for having the soul of an accountant. In choosing between the two, voters typically have gone for the team that seemed most likely to deliver economic growth and increased prosperity and punishing whatever team was in control when growth and prosperity stalled or turned negative.

It may be messy, but that system has served the country well for a long time. So, while it makes to be skeptical about promises by any politician, all the endless cynicism seems a bit overdone.

It would be interesting to know what he did when he was Senator in DC, and what they did in Chicago.Did Michelle have a garden in Hyde Park? Did she often nip into a homeless shelter to serve food? Did he wave to the have-nots as he checked out Tony Rezko's slummlord properties?

Oh, so I was saying...if this is the kind of stuff he's done for the past 4 years in DC (ha!) or in Chicago, then it seems like an attempt to lead a normal life.Otherwise, it seems a bit of image-managing: I'm a man of the people! Washington doesn't work for us!

The President as an office should be more elevated than being the local Mayor. Sure we want to see the guy and know that he is a regular person.....but, we also want to know that he is hard at work controlling the Ship of State.

If anyone has ever been on a cruise ship, you know that the Captain of the ship makes ceremonial appearances at certain functions, dinners and dances etc. However, we would be kind of worried if we saw the ship's Captain at the bar every night, bellying up to the buffet table at all times of the day, playing vollyball on the deck with the rest of the passengers and sunbathing with a margarita at hand.

Strange to read this today from HD(was there something in the morning's coffee?):

Just the usual cream and sugar ;-)

MM and HD are getting a little carried away with cynicism du jour. You're both assuming a static model of politics, as if the Reps will remain in Bush-mode (lowering taxes while increasing expenditures, leading to exploding deficits).

My cynicism is based upon mathematics and not on the belief that politics will remain static. The money isn’t there. In fact, there is not enough money in existence to pay for the promises that were made. So we can 1) eliminate those programs or 2) radically reduce benefits to the point where we can actually pay for those programs or 3) continue on the present course and let the mathematical formula play out. Rich, too much of the electorate is partly or solely dependent upon the Federal government for housing, health care, income or all of the above and neither party is going to say ‘no more’ until such time as China and the rest of the world say sorry, not buying anymore Treasuries and based upon the last few days, we’re getting damn close to that scenario.

The answer to the question is no for two reasons. First, everyone needs time away. The fact that life isn't like West Wing shouldn't be a surprise. Second, since his work consists primarily of destroying Americas future economy we're all better off when he's taking in a game.

But it's worth asking the question to highlight the unending media hypocrisy considering the ridiculous focus on Bush's "vacations".

No, but he should stop smiling so much, as if he enjoys our pain. And how do they handle security with the first couple flitting all over town? Do they clear the restaurant or create a large security bubble around the arena?

HD: "The money isn’t there." Yes, and even many Dems in Congress have noticed. As for the Reps, they've morphed into the Party of No, as in "no more money," at least according to Rahm and Barney and Nancy. Thus, the Reps seem to be agreeing with your basic point, and acting on it.

As for the tipping point, you suggest it will come when foreign buyers stop showing up at Treasury auctions, and you say "we’re getting damn close to that scenario." OK. I think you're simplifying the decisionmaking here (buying a Treasury is a relative choice between available alternatives, and those alternatives aren't all that attractive right now), but put that aside. Even if you're right, the Roman party that you describe is coming to its natural end.

At bottom, I suspect that the average voter is much more skeptical about promises of a free lunch than you imagine. And many voters are looking at the stupendous destruction of wealth in their 401-Ks, Keoghs or corporate pension fund, and aren't happy about it. If they don't see results, they will act on that perception next time they get the chance. That's one point that I think both Dems and Reps will agree on.

HD: "The money isn’t there." Yes, and even many Dems in Congress have noticed. As for the Reps, they've morphed into the Party of No, as in "no more money," at least according to Rahm and Barney and Nancy. Thus, the Reps seem to be agreeing with your basic point, and acting on it.

Yes the GOP has but I’ll even agree with the liberals in that they don’t have a whole lot of credibility on that. It’s going to take a whole lot of Democrats to break away and say no mas.

Even if you're right, the Roman party that you describe is coming to its natural end. Well the natural end is going to be an ugly one because I don’t think it will actually end until the dollar is the equivalent value of a spent candy wrapper which leads us back to my original point. It’s kind of like saying I’m quitting smoking now that I have stage 4 lung cancer.

If they don't see results, they will act on that perception next time they get the chance. That's one point that I think both Dems and Reps will agree on.

Oh I agree they’ll act on it but at this point here are the alternatives: Drastically cut or eliminate the entitlements which the Dems won’t go with nor will that gigantic voting bloc called AARP. Or tax the living shit out of every man woman , child and postpone the inevitable because you have to go back to the realization that there is not enough printed money to keep the programs going. Yes I know we can print more but well, we know were that takes us.

Good luck with that one. Outside of right wing blogs this one just ain't gonna hunt.

Oh garage I don't expect it too. The love affair with Obama is so strong, he can encourage everyone to drink our own urine to preseve our precious water supply and at least a 1/3 of the electorate will install Dixie cup dispensers right next to the toilet paper thingy.

Hoosier - Not trying to be a doomsayer but we're pretty much done as a functioning nation. Maybe 20 years tops and we'll be somewhere along the lines of Zimbabwe because our debt will be unsustainable. There simply is not enough tax dollars to pay for all the entitlements. Our unfunded liabilities (Medicare SSN) alone need $42 trillion right now, not yesterday not next year, right fucking now in order to keep those programs solvent 50 years from now.

The maths been done and the money simply isn't there. We can eliminate all defense spending and tax everyone at 70% and the money isn't there. This isn't me making the stuff up. This is from David Walker, former Comptroller General.

Hoosier, the fixes are there, but they will be equally as unpopular with Republican and Democrat constituency groups.

1. Increase retirement age to 68-69, no tap-ins to SS until 64. An end to diverting SS funds to younger recipients for being "a disabled OctoMom or black child with special needs."

2. Universal health care in the excellent French and German and Japanese systems costs 45% less per capital than the US percapita healthcare cost - covers everyone, citizens have longer lifespans.

3. The public will have to accept "means testing" on much of the extravegent medicare costs. It frosts me to no end when I see a senior on TV bragging their new 6,000 dollar Hover-round chair takes them right from their house to the golf course and "It didn't cost me a PENNY out of pocket! Medicare paid it all!"

4. The public will have to expect that there will be rationing and "tiers" of medicare service. Lifetime parasites that contributed NOTHING into medicare will get very basic care. Contributors more...and those with funds or home equity they are willing to put up will get "premium care".And the costs of the elderly may well have to be deducted from their estates.

5. The Religious Right will have to swallow that we cannot afford enormously expensive heroic care simply to preserve a low or non-existent quality of life. And all of us may have to accept that health policy, not "Victim family wishes" may drive decisions on how much care and resources go to retarded preemies with multiple handicaps and life-threatening conditions, how much care Alzheimers vegetatives can expect, what is done to prolong lives of terminally ill..

6. And liberal Dems may have to accept that the answer to stupid lazy and or disruptive kids is not more tax dollars for more "teacher hires to give extra attention" to such stupid lazy kids - now reclassified as "special needs" - but the Asian and Euro approach that all kids are not college material but best put in vo-tech at 40 to a class, and rid of them, the college potential kids can also learn well in a 40 students to a class classroom.(A great revelation was going from a 20-25 student a class public school to a prestigious college where there were 80-100 students in a class...The explaination was that students were more motivated since their families were paying or scholarships were - and learning well, along with 99 others, was not something the school believed as an impediment.)

The problem here is not exactly that the President isn't working hard enough, but rather, that he isn't at the point yet where he can spend time doing anything else than being president.

President Bush (43) was able to get away with not working 24/7 because he was able to delegate well and get a smoothly functioning administration up and running in short order. Much of Treasury is still unstaffed at the top, and its tax cheating Secretary is over his head, Commerce is no better.

So, seeing the Obamas out on the town so much, with the President doing anything else besides actually running the country, looks a bit like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

I think that he would look much better in the Oval Office with his jacket off and sweat streaming off his brow attacking the great problems of the day, instead of gallivanting around town. And then, if and when he gets his Administration running smoothly, then kick back, and be seen around town. Right now, it looks like all perks, and little work.

I understand he is working 4.5 day weeks with weekends off and doesn't miss dinner with the family for pressing business.

Very Reaganesque of him. Reagan was sunny. He kept short office hours and joked about it. Yes, he said, it was true that hard work never killed anyone, "but, I figure, why take the chance?" and retreated to his California home whenever he had the chance.

And there was another President who liked to get out and about, even at the cost of some pain to residents and the Secret Service:

As governor of Arkansas, Clinton could run through downtown Little Rock and chat amiably with anyone he met before strolling to the neighborhood McDonald's for a cup of decaf.

But the new president's frequent jogs in the nation's capital threaten to become a major headache for morning commuters, D.C. police and the Secret Service agents assigned to protect his life, according to police and some members of the media assigned to keep tabs on him.

Clinton's jogging also has raised concerns that any tourist, would-be jogging partner or protester, with an ax to grind could literally get within stone's throw of the president just by standing on the right street corner at the right time.

Secret Service and D.C. police officials would not comment for this story. One officer, asked about Clinton's daily jogs, erupted with a stream of obscenities and suggested the early morning forays would come to an abrupt halt after the first time agents intercept someone trying to do the president harm.

"An incident usually has to be precipitated before they get the drift," said another officer familiar with presidential security. "These presidents come in here thinking they're made of Teflon."

"I view this whole proposition of the jogging with dread," said Helen Thomas, a veteran correspondent for United Press International who has covered every administration since John F. Kennedy's. "We'd like to know that he's nice and secure and safe and happy in the Oval Office. Not that we want to deprive him of human contact."

So Obama is a happy combination of Reagan and Clinton, the best Presidents since Eisenhower.

The most impressive thing in the linked article: the arena trusts Obama to drink from a glass, instead of a plastic or paper cup.

"2. Universal health care in the excellent French and German and Japanese systems costs 45% less per capital than the US percapita healthcare cost - covers everyone, citizens have longer lifespans."

I have yet to see where all this reduction in costs is going to come from, unless from a reduction in health care. We have seen in the UK and Canada, at least, a significant reduction in certain types of medical care deemed less important by the powers to be - such as a knee replacement for our Candadian ski guide (he went to India and paid for it, getting it maybe 3 years earlier than he would have in Canada). And mere length of life is not the only criteria - how about quality of life (e.g., substitution of pain drugs for surgery).

This whole thing implies that our government could jump in and run the medical system more efficiently than private enterprise can. This is a nice thought, but I have seen little evidence that our government can run anything efficiently, and, instead invariably see how it runs things grossly inefficiently. But maybe this time they will succeed. We can always keep hoping.

Also, keep in mind that most of the socialized medicine systems that are held out to us as exemplary, cover much more homogeneous populations.

"3. The public will have to accept "means testing" on much of the extravegent medicare costs. It frosts me to no end when I see a senior on TV bragging their new 6,000 dollar Hover-round chair takes them right from their house to the golf course and "It didn't cost me a PENNY out of pocket! Medicare paid it all!""

I too find this problematic.

However, where I obviously differ from you is in your apparent assumption that the government should pay more for health care for those who don't work, than for those who work hard for it. Somehow, that doesn't seem fair to me. But obviously my definition of "fairness" differs from yours.

But it still comes down to the question of why do the American people owe good health care to everyone (except for those who work hardest)? Why is this now a right? And if adequate healthcare is now a right, then how long until adequate housing, food, and transportation are also a right?

Liar. There was no warning of the 9/11 attack. Only intel that was not actionable

AGAIN, the title of the memo one month before 9-11 that Bush dismissed to go cut brush: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

From the memo: Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

The most idiotic defense of Bush is probably "nothing could be done about this warning."

- Don't pass on the warning to anyone or make it a priority or ask what can be done. Give up and cut brush, it's too hard. - Don't alert the airports. - Don't call on the FBI to make this warning their top priority. - Don't ask the FBI to check those warnings from their field offices that they ignored for years. - Don't tell your National Security team to stop selling "Star Wars" and start defending the nation. - Don't convene a meeting to tell your security team: "We need to make this our top priority and I want a plan - stat."

No, the RIGHT thing to do was to shrug it off, tell the good agent handing him the memo "you covered your ass" and then attack Democrats over national security.

What a pathetic attempt to make excuses for a deeply incompetent man who made the false claim of defending America when the worst attack since Pearl Harbor happened under his watch.

Oh, no! there's NOTHING to be done about planes being hijacked! It's impossible! You can't get there from here!

So Obama is a happy combination of Reagan and Clinton, the best Presidents since Eisenhower.

Well fine but considering that we're in the worst economic crisis since (cue scary organ music) The Great Depression, I'd rather see him pounding on Geithner to get a frickin staff put together rather than going on his Magical Mystery Tour.

The most idiotic defense of Bush is probably "nothing could be done about this warning."

Well considering that the best defense would be to 'keep an eye out for swarthy Arab men between the ages of 17-45 boarding planes' would immediately been denounced by folks like you as Racist! Fearmongering! Fascist! I'd say not so idiotic.

"Round up all the darkies" was not the only course of action and probably not the most effective use of resources. Like it or not, there are a lot of dark-skinned people out there.

Wow, did I say round up all the darkies? Holy cow lemme look....Nope, I said keep an eye out for swarthy Arab men between the ages of 17-45 since it just happens to be the main demographic conducting terrorist attacks since, oh, the last 35 years.

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

Though to be fair you weren'tcalling for rounding up all dark-skinned people, just the dark-skinned Arabs.

Actually to be fair, I wasn't calling for rounding up anyone. I know reading comprhension is a challenge for you but I'm surprised that even you're that stupid. Well mildly surprised anyway.

Ok Alpha let’s try this one for size. Let’s say Obama get’s a PDB that says IRA determined to strike US. Let’s not focus on people with names like Juan Valdez Villalobos, Muhammed Akbar or Wang Chin Fat nor should any swarthy people be singled out for additional scrutiny. In fact if you have red hair, freckles and alabaster skin with the name Seamus O’Hoolihan, I think you should be dragged out of line and be given a full body cavity search before getting on a plane.

Now back in the real world bin Laden was determined to strike the US. Osama bin Laden is an Arab. His terrorist organization is Arabic and is chock full of …wait for it…Arabs. You following so far? Excellent. Now as distasteful as it may be I don’t think it’s unreasonable to give those folks some extra scrutiny and if that is aided by nature of their distinct appearance, so be it. Now obviously singling out a specific ethnic group, who just so happens to be the predominant demographic in bin Laden’s terrorist organization makes you angry. I’m sorry. Please feel free to sign on to the ‘Rather be dead than rude’ crowd.

FLS, and your point is what? (1) If you think I'm a fan of either party, you are wrong. It's not that Republicans are good, it's just that Democrats are worse. (2) At your link, switch to Obama. Lookie there! You'll find many of the same folks, and you'll find much higher amounts in general.

madawaskan said..."Democrats seem to forget that Obama has the very same two WARS going. What's the difference?"

Well, without getting into the whole "war" thing again, Obama's only been President for about 60 days so we really have no real answer to what we'll see in 6 months to a year or more.

Anybody who thinks Obama or any new President could merely pull the plug in a matter of months is not very well versed on the massive logistics, politics and dangers inherent in such a move.

I do find much of the criticism of Obama, so soon after taking office, to be rather strange.

Anybody, a CEO of a huge corporation or even the President of a mid-sized company, taking over with so many problems and such an overwhelming debt load, would be hard-pressed to turn things around in a matter of years much less months.

Well, Alpha, as usual you are defending the indefensible by standing up straw men.

The NIE you linked to contains no actionable intelligence, as the term is defined within the three-letter agency community. At least some of what you suggest that he should have done was effectively barred by the "Gorelick wall" (not really her fault, some say, but she's going to be stuck with the term whether fair or not.

It's useful to keep in mind that before 9/11/2001 hijackings by Arab terrorists had resulted in three American deaths at the hands of the hijackers -- a Navy enlisted man on TWA flight 847, a wheelchair-bound American tourist on the Achille Lauro, and an unidentified American on Egypt Air flight 648 (all in 1985). In other words they were a nuisance, but not more than that. Elite units had been trained in the US, Germany, and elsewhere to rescue the hijacked passengers and instructions to aircrew back then were to cooperate with the hijackers. (The non-Arab hijacking of an Ethiopean flight had resulted in a high death toll, but only when the plane ran out of fuel and a hijacker interfered with the pilot attempting to ditch.)

If you're going to blame Bush for not being prescient, then I guess the rest of us get to spend the next 46 months blaming Obama for not being prescient?

There is a degree of utter hypocrisy in Obama's taking a 12 day Christmas vacation in Hawaii, avoiding work on the weekends, and then describing the economy in apocalyptic terms. If the situation is that serious then he should be holding daily meetings with his brain trust, and that goes for the weekends, too.

That's all anyone's saying. I for one don't think Obama's lazy. His campaign demonstrated that he can work hard when he wants to.

FLS, why don't you use that same site to compare Obama's take $$$ compared to McCain's from the financial sector contributors? What's that? It's double? No kidding?? How coome you aren't posting those numbers?

madawaskan said..."The argument from Democrats was that it was gauche and uncaring to be seen golfing or on a Segway because a person-George W. Bush should not be frivolously enjoying himself while-the troops were RISKING their lives out in the field."

I don't think Obama is ignoring his responsibilities, all of the polling I've seen reflects an appreciation that he's trying to explain his policies to regular Americans. (The NCAA bracket/Leno things are meaningless considering the love affair Reagan/Bush/Clinton and others had with many such endeavors.) but I also think my initial comment related to Michelle Obama's work.

As for George W. Bush; over the course of time Bush initiated the Iraqi invasion and the day he left office he spent more time on vacation than any other President ever, and that doesn't count the many months he spent in Crawford that didn't count.

I think it's one of the primary reasons he carried such an abysmal approval rating as he left office.

Jeremy @ 2:25I think it's one of the primary reasons he carried such an abysmal approval rating as he left office.

Sorry, but I call bullshit.

Years ago in an interview discussion with Russert about media bias, Tom Brokaw remarked that perhaps it wasn't fair that the media, and to his regret NBC News, gave Speaker Gingrich 99% negative coverage from day 1.

Ya think?

The same wall-to-wall negative coverage was given Bush during and after the 2000 elections. A brief respite after 9/11 then the piling on resumed. It continues with Palin. When has the national media had such interest in a former candidate four months after their drubbing in a general election?

That's true, but you're going to have a hard time dismissing the fact that he garnered a vast majority of the money for his campaign from regular Americans contributing less than massive amounts of money through the internet strategy and face to face solicitations.

And once again; they ALL collect way too much dough, and you might also might take a look back at the kind of money contributed to George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 if if you're really interested in "overflowing cups."

Madawaskan, this may surprise some, I was once a Liberal, yes, a big "L" liberal, was raised by Yellow Dog Dems, walked union picket lines as a child. They lost me two years into Carter's term.

I donated to Clinton's '92 campaign solely because he pledged to save the Headwaters Forest, no I'm not a tree hugger, you should see these trees. Awesome.

I stood a row back from him and Gore as they did so, got the tee shirt. Of course when the time came he was immersed in scandal of the day and chose to spend his capital to save himself and Babbit had to deal with it. Only 3000 acres of California's last primeval stand of redwood rain forest was saved out of 600,000. While I'm pleased we have any of the giant trees left, it is a sad commentary on politics as usual.

Clinton spent billions on an unnecessary war in the Balkans but couldn't see the forest for the trees in California.

Being second generation Croatian with my Dad fighting WW II, Korea and Vietnam and the rest of my family fighting all of them except Grenada and having been mentored by military historians in college-who were always unchauvinistic -

Hey Alpha,Can your bovine excrement. Clinton was warned several times about Bin Laden and AQ. The warnings were more accurate than the ones Bush received. They were actionable. He did nothing but diddle his intern. He even stopped what would have been a termination of Bin Laden.

You seem to leave out that other coward, Carter, who was warned that the US would one day be attacked and did nothing to establish a counter terrorism program. He just invited the head terrorist of the time, Arafat to the United States.

Or is it Clinton good good good?Carter saintly, saintly, saintly?Bush evil evil evil?

@Jeremy, what's bothersome about Obama's fundraising is not how much he raised or even from where. The online fundraising that he relied on towards the end of his campaign was wide open to abuse. I'm not myself a cyber security expert, but I do understand that it was a trivial matter to send Obama millions of dollars from a single donor (illegal -- the limit in a general election is $2300) in small and essentially untraceable increments.

So the bottom line is that you cannot in all honesty say that Obama "garnered a vast majority of the money for his campaign from regular Americans contributing less than massive amounts of money through the internet [sic] strategy" because the way Obama's campaign set it up it's impossible to know for sure that the internet contributions even came from Americans, much less that they were legal.

I don't think the FEC wants any part of addressing the Internet loopholes so my prediction is that in 2012 the Republicans will set up a similar Internet fundraising approach and badly whip the Democrats. Then the MSM, in whatever form they exist (I see that the Washington Post is set for another round of buyouts and the NYT is laying people off and cutting salaries of those that remain) will have collective amnesia about possible Internet fundraising abuse in 2008 and scream bloody murder. But by then we'll have a Republican president and they can scream all they want.

I'm not myself a cyber security expert, but I do understand that it was a trivial matter to send Obama millions of dollars from a single donor (illegal -- the limit in a general election is $2300) in small and essentially untraceable increments.

As long as we're spouting unsupported garbage, how about this?

"I'm not myself a psychological expert, but I do understand that it was a trivial matter for the North Vietnamese to brainwash McCain so that he would destroy the United States if elected President."

Laura(southernxyl) said..."From all the bitching I've heard and read about airport security since 9/11, I don't think the airports could have been secured before the attack - I don't think the public would have put up with it."

They're still a joke.

Between taking your shoes off (thank God he didn't hide it up his ass), lotions and gels (what if five terrorists all take their share on board?), computers having to be taken out of carry cases (the x-ray can't see through the bag? and in Europe you don't even have to do it, nor the shoes), the lack of expertise on the part of the TSA, and the fact that every time they actually test anything, they get bombs and weapons through all the time, I don't feel any safer at airports and I fly 2-5 times a month.

@Jeremy, I really don't care whether you picked up the data from FactBook or anyplace else. It was trivial to cheat. Here's a link that describes some of the concerns: suspect fundraising

Something I had forgotten is that contributions under $200 don't have to be reported at all. So if I had a spare million dollars to contribute all I would have to do is make up 5025 bogus names and addresses and send in that many $199 contributions. As I said, trivial.

Also, as you pointed out,a great deal of money was raised face-to-face, but given that ACORN came up with so many bogus voter registrations, do you not consider the possibility that some large faction of the contributions raised that way were just as bogus?

I can't prove that Obama cheated, but (1) neither can you or he or anybody else prove he didn't, and (2) he does come from Chicago, doesn't he?

Oh, yes, your foolish remark to the effect that "we can assume both sides do their fair share." No, you might so assume but I observe that the MSM watches Republicans like a hawk while it gives Dems a blanket pass. So what I can assume is that the Republicans are more honest, if only because they're watched more closely.

@former law student, actually what I posted is something I got from an a person who really is a cyber security expert. And although I'm not a medical doctor, I can confidently observe that you are a proctologist's dream: a totally perfect asshole.

but given that ACORN came up with so many bogus voter registrations,...

ACORN was well paid with a 4billion dollar bonus in stimulus money. What does ACORN contribute to the economy and why did they need a bailout bonus- what else can you call it? There was no public outrage or legislative outrage over 4billion dollars going to a criminal (vote fraud) organization. No one eas demanding that names be made public or that mob action be taken against members of ACORN. There are no angry demands for them to give the money back either. Oh the stench of Democrat hypocrisy.

by the way, wasn't it GWB who spent 1/8th of his presidency on vacation? and 7/8ths of it in hibernation? there was plenty of outrage at his work ethic or lack thereof...but I must say we all felt safer when he was out of touch rather than trying to run things...

frankly it is nice to have a president put in a full day and week and have one that you don't instictively shudder over when you hear that he is on the job.